June 05, 2007

Asante to Pats: See you midseason: New England Patriots cornerback Asante Samuel, miffed about being given the franchise tag, is skipping the Pats' first mandatory minicamp. He also says he'll skip the preseason and the first half of the regular season if New England doesn't sweeten its offer. Where do your sympathies lie, and is the franchise tag fair? And tack on any other interesting minicamp news, like this tidbit about the Houston Texans allowing running back Samkon Gado to miss some offseason workouts to study for the MCAT. Gado plans to become a doctor when his football career ends.

I'm always on the side of the player, more so when it's football (due to the non-guaranteed contracts), but I think this is a mistake. If he accepts the franchise tag, he's getting almost $7 million more, increasing his salary by an order of magnitude. If he doesn't, he sits for a year, collects almost nothing and the team probably isn't much worse off. He's a good cornerback on a team with secondary problems, but he's not as good as 12 picks suggests* and the Patriots have other options. I don't see the upside for him. In a year, he'll be a year older and no richer. What's the downside to taking the $7 million? * Right or wrong, I think of high pick totals as being analogous to high outfield assist totals: you only wind up with them if people don't believe in your ability to perform.

The downside to taking the $7 million dollars is that Asante could get hurt and that's the last $7 million he will ever receive As if he couldn't live comfortably with $7 million dollars? That's like when Latrell Sprewell wanted to get re-signed by the Minnesota Timberwolves (while making $14.6 million dollars per) and felt slighted when they offered him less than what he was already making. Like Latrell, will Asante make the familiar statement, "I've got my family to feed?"

First off, while you can never rule out career-ending injuries, I wouldn't go thinking the odds are too great that would happen to Samuel. The reality is he's going to receive, at worst, nearly 8 million dollars per year (which should mean that even if he is cut down by a devastating injury he should manage to keep a decent amount of food on his table). What's more likely is he'll wind up like Nate Clements in Buffalo. The Bills used their franchise tag on him, kept him around a little longer, but then he left after signing a ridiculously stupid offer from the Niners. I'm not really for or against the franchise tag, because it has benefits and drawbacks for all involved. When people start saying, like above, that the players union needs to get rid of the franchise tag, it makes me wonder if these are the same people who whine and cry about how unfair major league baseball is to small franchises because of outrageous salaries. Football, for better or worse, has still managed to keep salaries a bit more reasonable (with the salary cap) and also keep some teams intact with players they develop (via the franchise tag) rather than having to deal with dumb teams (ex. Washington) plucking these guys away for outlandish numbers.

If a team want to keep a player that it developed once he hits free agency, then it has to pay him the market rate. The teams have the best of both worlds. When a player like Asante outperforms his contract (which he did), they get him at that great rate. When a player underperforms his contract, they cut him or ask him to renegotiate with threat of being cut. Then, when a player finally gets to free agency, the team gets to prevent him from seeking a long-term deal and can keep him on a year-to-year deal indefinitely. And, please stop with the food on the table and feed the family stuff. It has nothing to do with player's salaries. Players should get paid what the market demands, not what they need to survive. They have a skill that only a few hundred people can do in a highly profitable industry.

I hate the franchise player designation. Why should one player on each team have to offer his services at a discount? It would be better to have a Larry Bird rule and a lower cap. Let teams have a better chance to keep their own without pissing them off.

I'm going to ignore the larger picture of franchise tag, owners vs. players, and out of touch athletes. Asante had a high number of interceptions which everyone brings up, but the Patriots see the amount of plays he botched as well. To cross sports, he's closer to an Allen Iverson (of whom I'm a huge fan) looking at his steals per game and declaring that he's a great defender. Asante gambles way too much and gives up big yards at bad times. He doesn't shut down opposing WR like Champ Bailey. Listening to him talk, he thinks he's Champ Bailey, but he has a long way to go to get to that level. Asante should be happy he got a 1000% raise, and not flat out cut.

Asante should be happy he got a 1000% raise, and not flat out cut. This makes no sense. He's a free agent. He would like to be cut. If you don't think he can make more than the $8 million of his tender offer on the open market, then you haven't been paying attention to what defensive backs are earning these days. The Patriots know that they would have to pay a lot more than that to keep him, that's why they designated him as their franchise player. And, please stop with the food on the table and feed the family stuff. You do realize, as mentioned above, it's often the deep-thinking athletes themselves that say this very thing. Often? Hardly ever, that's why Sprewell's comments are memorable for how stupid and shocking they are. Asante never said anything like that, and he certainly hasn't been pulling in the big bucks as a 4th round pick. It has no relevance to this discussion. It's just a variation on the theme that athletes make too much money and should be grateful to earn that much money just to play a game.

This makes no sense. He's a free agent. He would like to be cut. If you don't think he can make more than the $8 million of his tender offer on the open market, then you haven't been paying attention to what defensive backs are earning these days. The Patriots know that they would have to pay a lot more than that to keep him, that's why they designated him as their franchise player. No doubt that he would make a lot more elsewhere. But, according to the CBA, which the players supported, the team has that right. There are lots of benefits for the players in the current CBA, and unfortunately, this one works against at most 32 of them. If AS was smart (a big IF) he'd negotiate an agreement that the team wouldn't do the same thing next year, and sign the offer and report on time to training camp. His next employer won't look kindly upon a proven disruptive influence in the locker room. However, I highly doubt that he'll not be present and playing in game one. This is just a bit of carping and whining on a legitimate tactic by the Pats. It might also be a harbinger of the "non-contract" to come next year for him. Brady, in his current contract form, is set to earn $14.5 million or a double digit percentage portion of the total allotted to the team for salaries. AS may be a luxury they won't be able to afford, so there's no reason to negotiate a new deal this year.

The Redskins wanted Lance Briggs of the Bears, another franchise player who is pissed. I still there is a small chance of getting that one done, otherwise Briggs has threatened to do the same thing Samuel is. I really do understand why they don't want the franchise tag, what if they get hurt? Then they truly are screwed, never gonna see the guaranteed big $$.

All I know (and that 'aint much, admittedly) is that when Walter Jones was given the franchise tag for 5 years or whatever it was, he hated it. As they say, arguably the best offensive lineman currently in the game. I don't think he ever showed up to mini-camp, training camp, or pre-season practices. Once game one of the season came along, however, there was Walter, bigger than ever playing like it was going to be his last season. He never gave up on the team, and he was also rewarded (according to him) for his patience. Not to keep talking about my own team, but the same thing happened to Shawn Alexander and, even though he didn't have to wait as long as Walter did, his patience paid off as well. Maybe what Asante Samuel ought to excercise during mini-camp is a little patience. New England isn't such a bad place to play pro football, from the looks of it. Then again, I don't know much.

This is what is wrong with the pros of today. Granted the owners are making billions and the players deserve at least half, but, this whole situation with Samuel is what out of line. Just who in hell, does he think he is and what ever happened the the contract guidelines and rules governing them. He signed the deal now play or don't get paid. The situation is a real double edged sword. One that we all know about and have for years now since the big money came into play. He doesn't have the legal right to hold out so to speak and his attitude is way out of line. He sits out violates his contract and no money comes in and his has to pay back some of what they have already given him. I am not for the players or owners and all lose here but he should be told to shut up and get into camp and try and work it out in the office....

Just who in hell, does he think he is and what ever happened the the contract guidelines and rules governing them. He signed the deal now play or don't get paid. Actually he didn't have much of a choice. Samuel is signed to an exclusive franchise tag which means that he wasn't allowed to negotiate with any other teams. Basically, his only option was to sign with the Patriots. Yes that is how the rules are outlined in the CBA, but I believe Samuel has every right to protest. He didn't recieve the chance to find an even better deal with another team which means he is now stuck in a one year contract that may end up being the most profitable one he's ever offered.

Just who in hell, does he think he is and what ever happened the the contract guidelines and rules governing them. He signed the deal now play or don't get paid. You do realize the owners who make those billions you mention aren't held to those standards, right? Of course, those are old white guys in suits, so it's ok if they screw people over.

Just who in hell, does he think he is and what ever happened the the contract guidelines and rules governing them. He signed the deal now play or don't get paid. You do realize the owners who make those billions you mention aren't held to those standards, right? Of course, those are old white guys in suits, so it's ok if they screw people over. Why does it matter what colour ''those old guys'' are?

Just who in hell, does he think he is and what ever happened the the contract guidelines and rules governing them. He signed the deal now play or don't get paid. The thing is he can only play with the Pats. It'd be as if a law was passed saying you had to give a year's notice to change jobs.

Actually, Samuel hasn't signed a thing. Technically, he is not now under contract to New England, but under the CBA, he can negotiate a long-term deal until July 14. After that, he is free to sign only for the franchise figure with NE. To be credited with a season played, he must report by week 10. If Samuel makes good on his threat to report only in week 10, then the NE coaching staff should simply work his backside off in practice, then put that backside on the bench, and not let him play a single down. Unless the NE defense is a total shambles by week 10 (highly unlikely), it will be seen that they don't really need him. What sort of resume will that make for Samuel if he goes into free agency in 2008?

Yes that is how the rules are outlined in the CBA, but I believe Samuel has every right to protest. Why should any of the franchise players, much less Samuels, have any right to protest the CBA which they signed when it has not been violated? If it were violated then they could file a grievance, citing which portion of the CBA was being violated and how it is negatively affecting them. Unfortunately for those unhappy franchise players though they have to follow the current CBA. If they don't like it that much, then next time negotiations are up, try to get rid of it. It is going to cost them something to do that though.

I can understand a little of what exactly makes the Franchise Tag unfair to Samuel. Since he was given the Exclusive Tag, he gets the average salary for the top 5 CBs in the league. I don't know those exact salaries, but that would most likely make him the 3rd or 4th highest paid CB in the league (depending on any sigings after the April salary snapshot used to determine Franshise salaries). I would say fair up until the point where he isn't allowed to negotiate deals with the other 31 teams and get some kind of signing bonus that he could keep in case of injury. Aside from him losing that negotiating ability, I don't see much of a loss for Samuel or any of the other franchise players. That being said, everyone in the NFL, via their unions, has agreed to these rules. I understand that doesn't mean every player agrees with it, but I bet if they were to ask some of those players back before free agency who had to stay on a team with no bargaining chip whatsoever, those guys would say todays players have it made.

Unfortunately for those unhappy franchise players though they have to follow the current CBA. Sure, they do. If Asante decides to sit out, then he faces whatever punishments are provided for in the CBA. It still might be the best decision for him. All I know (and that 'aint much, admittedly) is that when Walter Jones was given the franchise tag for 5 years or whatever it was, he hated it. Walter Jones is really lucky he never had an injury during that time. If he had, this story would not have had a happy ending.

Walter Jones is really lucky he never had an injury during that time. If he had, this story would not have had a happy ending. The current pay for a franchise OL is second only to QBs (approx $9.5M/year in 2007 and $7M in 2006). I don't know how that number has changed in the time Jones was making it, but I'd be willing to bet he made not too much less per year than he will be under his new contrtact with Seattle (7 years / $50M). And his new contract is not guaranteed any more than a yearly salary was. It seems to me the players union needs to focus on making NFL contracts a little more player friendly than anything else. It's crazy that a player like Jones can sign a 7 year contract which he will not be allowed of unless it's in the teams best interest, but if he were to ("insert your god here" forbid) have some kind of serrious injury, the team can kick him to the curb at their will.

Walter Jones is really lucky he never had an injury during that time. If he had, this story would not have had a happy ending. My point was that in Seattle's case, somewhat cooler heads were allowed to prevail. Walter never said he wouldn't play and his workout regimen while he was a no-show was legendary. For their part, team officials, outside of not immediately giving in to his pay demands, seemed to keep the lines of communication open with his agent and when it came to game time, everyone was on the same page. There didn't appear to be the same level of animosity displayed as there is between Samuel and the Patriots. Certainly things could have been different had Walter been injured, but we could also spend all day talking about what-ifs on a subject like this and the conversation would go nowhere.

ALL of the stipulations contained in the NFLs collective bargaining agreement were agreed to by the players. As was mentioned above, there were most certainly individuals (players) who didn't agree with all the provisions, but it was still signed. NFL players need to realize, each and every one of them, that a contract that is a cash-maker for the majority of NFL players, even though it throws some of them, potentially, under the bus (franchise players, players cut by teams, etc). This is the reality of the business they're in, and if it's unfair, then they need to hold out next time instead of signing any agreement. Samuel can complain all he wants, but the people who negotiated this were willing to bargain with the idea franchise players may potentially get the short end of the stick. Most players aren't, and will never be, franchise players. Also, if it's not OK to use the analogy of NFL players not being able to put food on their tables, even though they make a great deal of money, I say we also stop talking about players as they compare to other people who can, as some want to insinuate, leave their jobs any time they want and go get another. Sure, the NFL is the only real big business of that type there is, but that's just the way it is. Both are ridiculous statements. Obviously if anyone in the world thinks they're going to possibly leave a job that pays, for example, $8 million per year and go find another one that will pay the same, they're insane. You hold onto that job for as long as it happens to last, then don't expect the chance to ever come around again.

My point was that in Seattle's case, somewhat cooler heads were allowed to prevail. Walter never said he wouldn't play and his workout regimen while he was a no-show was legendary.Walter Jones talked about this. He initially had the same reaction as Samuel and Briggs, but didn't want to pass up that money for a year. He also mentions the added benefit of skipping training camp.

ALL of the stipulations contained in the NFLs collective bargaining agreement were agreed to by the players They were agreed to by a MAJORITY of the players. Just because a majority of a group decides something doesn't make it smart or right or eliminate the right of the minority to complain or object. For example, in 2004 a majority of the US voters voted for George Bush. That doesn't mean every American has to support his actions. It doesn't mean that no one has a right to criticize him just because he was elected. It doesn't remove peoples' rights to protest. This is the reality of the business they're in, and if it's unfair, then they need to hold out next time instead of signing any agreement. Hey guess what Asante Samuel is doing? Holding out! He can't force the whole union to hold out, so he's doing all he can, within the system, about the unfair situation.

$7 million to play, nothing to not play? Wow, he won't play until week 11 and he thinks the guys will need him. If I was him take the money life has no for sures. Stop the complaining, take the money and do what you did last year again and they or somebody else will pay even more. Otherwise who wants the attitude.

Does anyone know how a franchise tag is paid? Do they just take an average of the top five and write a check in August, or do they split the pay over a 17 week schedule? I ask because star players (and their agents) seem to structure deals so that players get these big one-time cheques at predetermined times, ie signing and roster bonuses. Samuel may make 7mil by the end of the season after receiving 16 game checks, but that is not the same as a player who gets a 7mil signing bonus and can invest his money during the season or sit on it making 5% or better. I could bring myself to accept the franchise tag if the player is given all his money when the tag is put on. But the cynic in me is pretty sure the teams/owners are allowed to hold on to that promised capital (and the revenue it creates) for as long as possible.

ALL of the stipulations contained in the NFLs collective bargaining agreement were agreed to by the playersThey were agreed to by a MAJORITY of the players. You copied what I wrote without including the following, which I said immediately afterwards: As was mentioned above, there were most certainly individuals (players) who didn't agree with all the provisions, but it was still signed. NFL players need to realize, each and every one of them, that a contract that is a cash-maker for the majority of NFL players, even though it throws some of them, potentially, under the bus (franchise players, players cut by teams, etc). This is the reality of the business they're in, and if it's unfair, then they need to hold out next time instead of signing any agreement. What I meant by that was hold out/off from signing the agreement. What I said originally stands: Players are out for what's best for the masses, not what may hurt one franchise player per team. They all want their piece of the gigantic cash-cow which is the NFL. The majority will benefit, while the vast minority will suffer. This becomes the problem with any union, professional association, etc. What benefits the masses is what gets a contract accepted. These other things will be a thorn in the players' sides each and every year, but the owners are going to take advantage of that. Owners realize that when push comes to shove, 99 percent of the players in the game want their damn money, and to hell with the other 1 percent the contract shits on.

We don't need an overhaul, to be honest we can even keep the "franchise player" marker. In theory it's a benefit to fans, and helps owners build good teams. The Colts, for example, have lost a starting linebacker every year for a good four to five years in a row now. Being able to franchise someone like Freeney helps stop the talent drain, and keep popular players in "their" cities. However, the problem is that when you get right down to it franchise players aren't adequately compensted for their services. This is NOT the intent of the franchise marker. If I am a Pro-Bowl caliber football player coming up on free agency, I'm looking for that 5-6 year deal with the 15-20 million dollar signing bonus, because careers in the NFL are short. Getting stuck with a 1 year deal is potentially disasterous if I get hurt. So what can you do? Rather than pay a franchise player the average of the top 5 paid at that particular position, I suggest a 10-20% pay increase from the most-paid player from the year before, perhaps with an additional requirement to offer a minimum 3 year contract the next year. A one year contract is an insult, and it's time it was treated as such. Will it happen, probably not. But it is important to realize that in its current state "franchising" is more analagous to "renting" than "rewarding".

apoch I think you missed the key words in that sentence. This is the reality of the business they're in, and if it's unfair, then they need to hold out next time instead of signing any agreement. There is not much he can do about it now, the action is covered in the current CBA.

There is not much he can do about it now, the action is covered in the current CBA. Not true. He can hold out and accept whatever penalty there is for that choice. If the owners wanted to eliminate that possibility, they would have made the penalty for that more severe. Under the current CBA, that is a reasonable choice for a player to make. Rather than pay a franchise player the average of the top 5 paid at that particular position, I suggest a 10-20% pay increase from the most-paid player from the year before, perhaps with an additional requirement to offer a minimum 3 year contract the next year Good idea. The long-term deal with a signing bonus is a very good alternative to the current state of things.

Not true. He can hold out and accept whatever penalty there is for that choice. I guess I am looking at it from a different perspective. When I read about one player having a problem with this, or even a few, but in this case here with one. I see it as him threatening to sit out, which he has the option to do. However, if he does not return to the team by week 10, then he won't earn a paycheck this year and won't earn the credit toward his pension. Thats the choice the CBA gives him. When the words hold out come up it makes me think of a player or players in contract negotiations, that have reached an impasse and there is no sign of progression seen in the near future. Did I read it correctly that after putting that franchise tag on AS the Pats don't have to talk about extensions with him unless they want to address more than this year, or they could always tag him again next year?

It's hard to understand how this Franchise Player tag is even legal in a country where free market capitalism is supposedly the law of the land. But of course we know that real free markets don't exist here or anywhere, only markets that are legislated to always benefit the stronger party in an economic relationship whether it be Corporations/consumers or Rich White Owners/less rich (mostly) black players. (Race and gender do matter by the way, unless your completely ignorant of economic realities and power structures in America). It doesn't matter if the player is going to make a ton of money; by designating a player as Franchise Player he is being denied the possibility to make even more money that, by the logic of the free market, he should be entitled to. Even worse, the money that he is denied goes directly to the Rich White Owner that is already raking in the lion's share of all profits. This is both an unfair distribution of wealth and a travesty in a supposedly free market.

Maybe the players, in future years, should pay a bit more attention to the agreement they're signing. Like I said before, most just want a contract signed and put in place so they can go out and start cashing their paychecks. Most probably don't look into it deep enough to see how it may impact them should they find themselves lumped into some of those agreed-upon categories. If the masses (the majority of NFL players), as a group, don't care enough about these stipulations to refuse to sign the CBA, realizing it will negatively impact such players, then why are we, as fans, wasting our emotions on it? I work in a profession which is represented by a large, powerful union, and if my bargaining unit was willing to basically accept a provision that would so negatively impact some of its members, then that points at a much bigger problem.

It's hard to understand how this Franchise Player tag is even legal in a country where free market capitalism is supposedly the law of the land. It's hard to understand how we constantly wind up in these discussions of rights and freedoms as though an employer (or a website) owed you the same treatment as the government.

(Race and gender do matter by the way Race and gender play no part in a CBA. Unless you're suggesting that certain races or genders can't read, or understand what they just read, or have the intelligence to negotiate their own contract. I would not make that suggestion, or statement myself though.

A website? I don't know where that came from, but as far as employers and the government, there are certain legislated rights that do protect workers against discrimination whether they work for the government or in the private sector, as I'm sure you know. In this case a player isn't discriminated against because of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. but because they are good enough to command a higher salary on the free market. This is pretty f*cked up in my opinion. On preview: Nor would I, and I don't see how you could read that into my comment. Race and gender do matter in terms of a broader socio-economic perspective in the United States. This is undeniable.

Sic, perhaps you would like to explain how the two of them affect the ability of the collective bargaining unit that signed the CBA under which the franchise player tag is permitted. Or at least how you meant that race and gender played a part in this. Especially the gender part, I was unaware of any females in the NFLPA.

A website? I don't know where that came from, It is, I'm quite sure, a response to the frequent "whatever happened to freedom of speech, duh, belch, first amendment rights" wank that comes up whenever someone points out that SportsFilter isn't a free-for-all. but as far as employers and the government, there are certain legislated rights that do protect workers against discrimination whether they work for the government or in the private sector, as I'm sure you know. I'm sure yerfatma knows that too. However... In this case a player isn't discriminated against because of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. but because they are good enough to command a higher salary on the free market. ...and "being good enough to command a higher salary on the free market" is not a protected category under the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the major piece of antidiscrimination legislation in the US) or any other legislation. So yerfatma's point stands: there's absolutely nothing illegal about the franchise player designation.